5.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  The first and second applicants were born in 1952 and 1965 respectively, and live in Novi Pazar.
7.  The first applicant was employed by Raška Holding AD – Pamučna predionica DOO (“the first debtor”), and the second applicant was employed by Raška Holding AD – Dorada tkanina DOO (“the second debtor”). The debtors are limited liability companies owned by the “Raška Holding Kompanija” (“the mother company”).
8.  On 14 May 1996 and 15 May 1996 respectively, the applicants were placed on compulsory paid leave until such time as normal production could be resumed and the said debtors’ business performance had improved sufficiently.
9.  Whilst on this leave, in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation, the applicants were entitled to a significantly reduced monthly income, as well as the payment of their pension, disability and other social security contributions.
10.  Since the debtors failed to fulfil these obligations, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”).
11.  On 26 February 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i.  the monthly paid leave benefits (garantovana zarada) due from 15 May 1996 to 1 June 2001 (RSD 13,370 in total[1]; EUR 190 at the relevant time[2]), plus statutory interest;
ii.  the monthly paid leave benefits (minimalna zarada) due from 1 June 2001 to 31 December 2003 (RSD 120,822 in total; EUR 1,725), plus statutory interest;
iii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions (doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje) due for the same periods; and
iii.  RSD 6,800 (EUR 95) for legal costs.
12.  On 15 March 2004 this judgment became final.
13.  On 18 March 2004, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order in respect of the paid leave benefits and costs, at the same time awarding the first applicant an additional amount of RSD 1,800 (EUR 25) for the enforcement costs. It was further specified that the judgment would be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the first debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets.
14.  On 17 June 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i.  the monthly paid leave benefits (minimalna zarada) due from 1 January 2004 to 30 April 2004 (RSD 21,576 in total; EUR 300), plus statutory interest; and
ii.  RSD 7,800 (EUR 110) for legal costs.
15.  On 12 July 2004 this judgment became final.
16.  On 14 July 2004, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order, at the same time awarding the first applicant the additional amount of RSD 1,200 (EUR 15) for the enforcement costs. It was further specified that the judgment would be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the first debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets.
17.  On 1 November 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits (minimalna zarada) due for the months of May to October 2004 (RSD 35,024 in total; EUR 460), plus statutory interest;
ii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions (doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje) due for the period from 1 May 2004 to 30 October 2004; and
iii.  RSD 7,800 (EUR 100) for legal costs.
18.  On 23 March 2005 the part of the judgment concerning the monthly paid leave benefits and the pension and disability insurance contributions became final. The part of the judgment relating to the costs of the civil proceedings became final on an unspecified date in 2005.
19.  On 23 June 2005, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order in respect of the monthly paid leave benefits, and the pension and disability insurance contributions, at the same time awarding the first applicant an additional amount of RSD 1,500 (EUR 20) in respect of the enforcement costs.
20.  On 24 June 2005 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order in respect of the costs and awarded the first applicant an additional amount of RSD 2,500 (EUR 30) in respect of the enforcement costs.
21.  Both enforcement orders specified that the judgment would be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the first debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets.
22.  On 10 March 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i.  the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 November 2004 to 31 January 2005 (RSD 19,040 in total; EUR 235), plus statutory interest;
ii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions due for the same period; and
iii.  RSD 9,750 (EUR 120) for legal costs.
23.  This judgment became final on 14 December 2005.
24.  On 5 January 2006, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order, specifying that the judgment would be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the first debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets. No additional enforcement costs were awarded.
25.  On 12 October 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i.  the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 February 2005 to 30 June 2005 (RSD 33,264 in total; EUR 390), plus statutory interest;
ii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions due for the same period; and
iii.  RSD 9,750 (EUR 115) for legal costs.
26.  This judgment became final on 6 December 2005.
27.  On 5 January 2006, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order, specifying that the judgment would be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the first debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets. No additional enforcement costs were awarded.
28.  On 21 February 2006 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i.  the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2005 (RSD 43,080 in total; EUR 495), plus statutory interest;
ii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions due for the same period; and
iii.  RSD 5,400 (EUR 60) for legal costs.
29.  This judgment became final on 23 March 2006.
30.  On 3 April 2006, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order in respect of the paid leave benefits and costs. It was further specified that the judgment would be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the first debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets. No additional enforcement costs were awarded.
31.  On 19 October 2006 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her former employer to pay her:
i.  the monthly paid leave benefits due for the months of January to April 2006 (RSD 31,280 in total; EUR 385), plus statutory interest;
ii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions due for the period from 1 January 2006 to 1 May 2006; and
iii.  RSD 11,700 (EUR 145) for legal costs.
32.  This judgment became final on 13 November 2006.
33.  On 27 November 2006, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order in respect of the paid leave benefits and costs, specifying that the judgment would be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the first debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets. No additional enforcement costs were awarded.
34.  On 19 January 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the second applicant. On 1 February 2005 the Municipal Court amended this judgment in respect of the due amounts, and ultimately ordered her employer to pay her:
i.  the monthly paid leave benefits (minimalna zarada) due from 1 June 2004 to 18 November 2004 (RSD 37,326 in total; EUR 335), plus statutory interest;
ii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions (doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje) due for the same period; and
iii.  RSD 9,750 (EUR 90) for legal costs.
35.  On 21 February 2005 this judgment became final.
36.  On 26 September 2005, upon the second applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order in respect of the paid leave benefits and costs. It was further specified that the judgment was to be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the second debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets. It is unclear whether any costs were awarded in respect of the enforcement proceedings.
37.  On 28 September 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i.  the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 December 2004 to 30 June 2005 (RSD 46,178 in total; EUR 545), plus statutory interest;
ii.  the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 July 2005 to 28 September 2005 in the amount of the minimum wage, as per the official data, plus statutory interest;
iii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions due for the same periods; and
iv.  RSD 9,750 (EUR 115) for legal costs.
38.  This judgment became final on 7 December 2005.
39.  On 27 December 2005, upon the second applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order in respect of the paid leave benefits and costs, and awarded the applicant an additional amount of RSD 2,250 (EUR 25) in respect of the enforcement costs. In was further specified that the judgment was to be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the second debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets.
40.  On 5 November 2004 the debtors’ mother company (see paragraph 7 above) proposed the Redundant Employees Programme (Program rešavanja viška zaposlenih – hereinafter “the redundancy programme”). The redundancy programme set out the criteria for determining redundant employees and, once declared redundant, provided them with two options for benefits: (i) to receive a single redundancy payment from the employer (jednokratna novčana naknada); or (ii) to receive a severance payment and claim monthly unemployment benefits from the social security of the State (otpremnina i novčana naknada). These benefits were provided for all employees, regardless of whether they had any other outstanding claim towards the company.
41.  On 7 December 2005 and 8 December 2005, the first and the second applicant, respectively, opted for the single redundancy payment.
42.  On 16 October 2006 and 4 September 2006 the mother company issued decisions terminating the first and the second applicant’s employment as of 11 October 2006 and 12 September 2006, respectively. Consequently, as of that date all the rights and obligations arising from the applicants’ employment were terminated.
43.  On an unspecified date the first applicant, and on 12 September 2006 the second applicant signed an agreement with their employer regulating mutual outstanding debts on account of loans or other claims, and on account of due salaries and pension and disability contributions, respectively. Without specifying any amount of the outstanding debts, the agreement provided for, inter alia, the employer’s obligation to pay its outstanding debt within six months, failing which the applicants were entitled to lodge a civil claim for compensation.
44.  On 11 October 2006 and 12 October 2006 the mother company paid to the first applicant and the second applicant each RSD 299,700 (EUR 3,700) on account of the redundancy payment.
45.  On 9 February 2007 and 9 October 2007 the due pension and disability contributions were paid.
46.  On 5 November 2004 the Privatization Agency (Agencija za privatizaciju) initiated the restructuring of the mother company, which is still ongoing. As of July 2013, the debtors still consisted of predominantly socially-owned and State-owned capital.